Blood Lust (35 page)

Psychiatrist for the Defence

The next witness for the defence was Datuk M. Mahadevan, senior
consultant psychiatrist in the Health Ministry and Director of the Hospital
Bahagia in Ulu Kinta. He said he had been in the field of psychiatry for 20
years. Since 1967 he had given evidence in Malaysian courts. In 1980 he had
given evidence about 20 times
.

Questioned by defence counsel, Mr Fernandez,
witness said if a person had suffered head injury then alcohol would aggravate
the condition. Asked if concussion could be sustained without any visible
injury, he said concussion was a reversible diffused cerebral damage but the
damage was of a neuromal shock which meant that there could be a physiological
or functional change but not a cellular change. To assess this, Datuk Mahadevan
said that one must know whether the person has been conscious or unconscious.
He said there were four kinds of coma:

The first was when a person was rousable
but sluggish and slow.

The second was when he was rousable to
painful and vocal stimuli but returns to sleep.

The third was when a person was only
rousable to intense painful stimuli, and

The fourth when he was not rousable at
all.

He added that the mental status could be
assessed from observation of the four stages of coma. These stages would help
to assess the degree of damage to the brain. Following a head injury there
would have to be other tests to determine cerebral damage at least for the
first 24 hours. There were, he said, seven steps which were the minimum
clinical tests before one could make a clinical evaluation to assess a head
injury ‘and we invariably observe them for a minimum period of 24 hours’. Answering
a question, Datuk Mahadevan said he would not make any judgement without the
seven steps. He said recovery from concussion takes place in four stages:
confusion, delirium, Korsakow stage and residual stage or defect. In the first
stage he said, there is poverty and slowness of mental activity. He then went
on to describe in detail the other three stages.

The Judge commented that Datuk Mahadevan had
given a good lecture on concussion and stages of coma. He added: “I have learnt
a lot, but it’s got nothing to do with the case so far.”

Cross-examined by the DPP, Datuk Mahadevan
said he was an independent witness. He had not come to the Court to give an
opinion but to answer questions. .

Replying to a question by the DPP, Datuk
Mahadevan said Professor Devadass may be competent to give his findings after
an observation of one hour and 10 minutes, but personally he would not like to
come to court to give an opinion within that time. Earlier Datuk Mahadevan said
he would like to observe a person for 90 days and subject him to
investigations. Datuk Mahadevan said the seven tests carried out on Karthigesu
were correct, but they were incomplete as there was no elaboration or comment
from the doctor.

Asked by the Judge what was missing from the
medical report, Datuk Mahadevan said there was for example an indication from
what Karthigesu told a doctor at the University Hospital, that he had taken a
few beers. Datuk Mahadevan said the doctor who attended to him should have made
him walk in a straight line and made him touch his nose with his finger. These
tests were all the more important because Karthigesu said he had taken a few
beers. He said the blood alcohol level should be determined because this
procedure was important to rule out whether a person was pretending or
malingering.

Acting Supt A.R. Cornelius gave evidence
that in April 1979 he was in the research and planning section of the CID. This
section was responsible for going through investigation papers and making
appropriate recommendations to officers on the ground for the prevention of
crime. He was assigned to the Jean Sinnappa case to assist ASP Ramli Yusoff,
the investigating officer. Answering a question from Mr Ponnudurai, counsel for
the defence, Acting Supt Cornelius said on 13 April 1979 he was with ASP Ramli
when he found the love-letters written to Jean by her Sri Lankan lover, Dr
Narada Warnasurya. The letters were found in a handbag inside a cupboard in
Jean’s bedroom in Karthigesu’s house at Jalan Solak Pulai, Klang. Acting Supt.
Cornelius said he made four typewritten copies of the letters. He gave two
copies to DSP Godwin Anthony, retained one copy, and gave the fourth copy to
the Director of the CID, Datuk Rahman bin Haji Ismail.

Witness said that on 11 April at about 10:30
pm
, he went to see Brian Perera,
Jean’s brother, in Kajang. The purpose of his visit was to find out if members
of Jean’s family could assist in the investigation. No one mentioned anything
about the letters. He subsequently sent word to Brian to go to Petaling Jaya
police station. Brian went there at 6:10
pm
on 28 April. He showed Brian copies of the love letters.

Mr Ponnudurai: What was his reaction?

Witness: He expressed surprise. He said
this was the first time he’d seen them.

Acting Supt Cornelius said his team of officers
held regular conferences to discuss progress. The meetings were chaired by DSP
Godwin Anthony. One of the conferences was held on 17 April 1979. There were
eight people present including the chairman. Witness said that the name of a
prosecution witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake, was not mentioned at this
meeting. He could not recollect any officer saying he had recorded a statement
from Jayatilake. The first he heard of this witness was from newspaper reports
during the preliminary inquiry.

Re-examined, Acting Supt Cornelius said if
the crime had been solved by 17 April then Karthigesu would have been arrested
earlier than 26 April. Questioned by the Judge, witness said he could not say
why the statement by Jayatilake was kept from him.

Judge: Is there any possibility that
the statement was concocted?

Acting Supt Cornelius: I would not be
able to say, my Lord.

Judge: Why not? Because of police
loyalty?

Acting Supt Cornelius: No, my Lord.

The Judge remarked that it was very strange
why Acting Supt. Cornelius was not told of Jayatilake’s statement.

Asked if other officers distrusted him,
witness said, “If they distrusted me I would not have been at three of the
conferences.”

Jayatilake was recalled by the defence for
further cross-examination. He said he went to Karthigesu’s house on 16 April to
ask Karthigesu to be a guarantor for a $3,000 loan which he wanted to take from
MCIS. Karthigesu signed the form, but the loan was not approved because
Karthigesu was not a member of MCIS.

Re-examined by the DPP, witness swore that
on 16 April, when he went to see Karthigesu it was with the honest intention of
asking him to sign the form. The visit was on his own. He had not been sent by
anyone.

Defence Submission

The defence also recalled for
cross-examination the investigation officer, ASP Ramli. Mr Ponnudurai said it
was police theory that Karthigesu committed the crime and washed himself at the
pond. Did he search the pond?

ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.

The witness added the responsibility for
searching the area had been given to DSP Godwin Anthony with the assistance of
the dog-handler and Police Field Force. He said he was not aware if DSP Godwin
Anthony searched the pond.

Replying to a question, ASP Ramli said
Jean’s husband had been killed in a road accident on 1st January, 1978 at the
junction of Jalan 222 and the Federal Highway.

Answering a question, ASP Ramli said he
recorded Karthigesu’s statement on 10th April.

Mr Ponnudurai began his submission by
telling the jury they had spent 29 days listening to evidence involving a
tragic drama. In coming to their conclusions they had to rely solely on the
evidence they had heard in Court, not on what they heard outside the Court, or
what they read in the newspapers. Mr Ponnudurai said the charge his client
faced was very serious. Karthigesu was arrested on 26 April 1979 and charged in
Court on 9th May with Jean’s murder. The charge had at first stated the offence
was committed at the 11th mile Federal Highway and on 30 July the charge was
amended to read Pilmoor Estate, Jalan Lapangan Terbang. When the trial began in
the High Court, the charge stated the offence was committed at Pilmoor Estate
between 11:00–11:35
pm
, and at
the close of the prosecution case the charge was amended to read between
11:10–11:40
pm
and the place was
amended again to the 11th mile Federal Highway. Mr Ponnudurai said the
prosecution had been toying with the life of a man, throwing him from pillar to
post, not knowing what charge to frame against him. Counsel reminded the jury
that they were the sole judges of fact. They should first consider the
prosecution case. If they felt the prosecution had not made out a prima facie
case, then they should acquit and discharge Karthigesu. If they thought there
was a prima facie, then they should consider the defence and decide if the
defence had cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution was
trying to prove the case solely through the evidence of doctors. The
prosecution would say the accused was putting on an act even before the
incident, ‘but you can’t go on speculation’.

The prosecution would say the killing of
Jean was a crime of passion and jealousy, that Karthigesu knew about the
letters Jean had received from her Sri Lankan lover, Dr Narada Warnasurya, and
that he had planned the murder. It was also the contention of the prosecution
that Karthigesu murdered her at the 11th mile Federal Highway and that he
washed himself at the nearby pond.

Mr Ponnudurai said Karthigesu and Jean were
seen at the junction of Jalan 222 and the Federal Highway and the first person
who saw Jean’s car parked at the scene was prosecution witness Abdul Wahab bin
Anu Amin. This was at 11:30
pm
on
6 April 1979. If the accused had done the killing he had ‘17 minutes to do all
this’. Counsel said DSP Godwin Anthony had told the Court the scene was dark
and the lights of three police vehicles had to be used to search the area. “In
these circumstances don’t you expect to find some mud on his shoes, and water
on his shirt? You have to ask yourself whether you can convict a man on mere
speculation.”

Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution contended
that Karthigsu was pretending to be unconscious, and since he was found near
the car, he therefore committed the murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial
evidence and on the extra-judicial confession Karthigesu made to prosecution
witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake. Counsel said that if the accused had told
the doctor at the Accident and Emergency unit he had had a few drinks, the
obvious thing to do was to put him through a blood test. This was not done.

Mr Ponnudurai said there was evidence that
Karthigesu was mumbling when he was found by the police at the scene but the
prosecution said he hoodwinked the police officers at the scene. But there was
medical evidence that Karthigesu was drowsy on admission to University
Hospital. The staff nurse said he had a pulse rate of 120 which was high, and
it denoted high emotions. Consultant psychiatrist Datuk (Dr) M. Mahadevan had
said the accused should have been observed for at least 24 hours with hourly
reports. Karthigesu was discharged from the hospital after five hours and 20
minutes and there were only two reports—one when he was admitted and the other
when he was discharged. Datuk Mahadevan had told the Court that alcohol
aggravated a state of concussion. The prosecution case was based on
circumstantial evidence that Karthigesu was malingering or pretending. “But
Datuk Mahadevan said Karthigesu’s 12 cranial nerves were grossly intact which
means he was not malingering. This one statement alone destroys the
prosecution’s case,” declared Mr Ponnudurai.

Turning to the evidence of Brian Perera,
Jean’s brother, Mr Ponnudurai said Perera had told the court Karthigesu had
taken the love letters to Kajang and shown them to him. But Acting Supt.
Cornelius, a defence witness, said when the police showed Brian the letters in
Petaling Jaya he had expressed surprise because that was the first time he had
seen the letters. The evidence of Acting Supt. Cornelius has thrown more than a
reasonable doubt on Brian’s evidence. Mr Ponnudurai said Perera testified that
Jean was a strong-willed person. She earned about $1,500 month, and if she did
not really like living with her mother-in-law she could have moved out to live
on her own. Mr Ponnudurai asked the jury not to be swayed by the allegations of
the prosecution that Karthigesu was pretending all the way, even when he went
house-hunting with Jean.

Counsel said there was evidence that
Karthigesu and Jean went out often and her mother-in-law had not objected. He
said if Karthigesu wanted to do away with Jean, he could have done it on any
one of those occasions and not on the day she was killed because he had been
seen by so many people.

Mr Ponnudurai said when defence was called,
Karthigesu could elect to remain silent, could make a statement from the dock
or give evidence from the witness box on oath and subject himself to
cross-examination. These were rights given to accused persons in all criminal
cases. Karthigesu had chosen to make a statement from the dock but what should
be borne in mind was whether his statement was corroborated or not—the fact
that he lost his car keys and his usual Friday night outings with Jean.